Congress should clarify authorization for war

The Obama administration’s political and legal authority to wage war against al-Qaeda has steadily eroded. Liberal and conservative members of Congress have challenged the administration’s lack of transparency in conducting drone attacks against alleged al-Qaeda operatives in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia. Foreign allies as well as adversaries have asked whether United States has arrogated the right to kill enemies anywhere in the world. Meanwhile, the appearance of new branches of al-Qaeda in northern Africa and, most recently, Syria has raised the question of whether the legal authority Congress granted in September 2001 for using military force applies to those groups. Obama has said he wishes to introduce greater openness into counterterrorism operations, but he has not yet taken any substantial steps. Now legislators in both houses are undertaking their own initiatives. In the House, Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Tex.), vice chairman of the Armed Services Committee, has introduced legislation that would require the Defense Department to report to Congress all kill-or-capture operations it undertakes and deliver a written explanation of legal basis and approval process used to place suspects on target lists. Thornberry’s measure would be a step forward. But it still leaves important legal issues unaddressed, which is why we support an effort by Senate Armed Services Committee to explore, beginning at a hearing Thursday, whether 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) should be revised. The law authorizes the president to use force against “those nations, organizations, or persons” responsible for the attacks on NYC and Washington. The Bush and Obama administrations have been backed by the courts in interpreting that language to allow attacks on the Taliban and al-Qaeda as well as “substantial supporters” and “associated forces.” But many legal experts have questioned whether a law aimed at Osama bin Laden and his cadre could be used to justify a drone strike against jihadists plotting an attack against the United States more than a decade later and thousands of miles from Afghanistan. A group of legal experts, including Robert Chesney of the University of Texas, Jack Goldsmith of Harvard, Matthew Waxman of Columbia, Benjamin Wittes of Brookings Institution, has proposed that Congress consider revising AUMF to authorize presidents to designate emerging al-Qaeda affiliates that pose a threat to the United States as covered by the force authorization. Such legislation could put into law criteria for adding militants outside conventional battle zones to strike lists and require greater disclosure. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has said he will seek to put together bipartisan group to consider such reforms. Opponents say that any such legislation risks placing the United States on a permanent war footing; some argue that the United States should instead move toward declaring the conflict against al-Qaeda over. That would mean closing the Guantanamo Bay prison and returning to the pre-9/11 methods for combatting international terrorism. No one wants an endless war, which is why the AUMF amendment proposal includes a sunset provision. But the reality is that al-Qaeda and its sucessors appear likely to pose a serious threat to the United States for the foreseeable future, as recent terrorist attacks in Benghazi and Algeria demonstrated. Countering the jihadists with intelligence and law enforcement tools manifestly failed before Sept. 11, 2001. Congress would be wise to ensure this president and his successors have the authority they need to defend the country. (source: Editorial Board – The Washington Post – 17/05/2013)

In IRS and AP scandals, a frighteningly impotent government

At a time when Congress can’t pass a budget and the president can’t win approval of any important legislation, the public is indignant about the threat of an overreaching, all-powerful federal government that uses the IRS and the Justice Department to harass its enemies. President Obama hasn’t begun to fix the big problem of Washington dysfunction, but he moved Wednesday to respond to public anger and reposition his sinking administration. He fired the acting IRS commissioner, released a blizzard of e-mails on Benghazi and backed a shield law to protect the journalists. It was fancy footwork in public-relations terms but not a reaction to what’s really ailing federal government. Crippling problem in D.C. these days isn’t any organized conspiracy against conservatives, the journalists or anyone else. Rather, it’s a federal establishment that’s increasingly paralyzed because of poor management+political second-guessing. What should frighten the public is not federal government’s monstrous power but its impotence. Firing officials has its place in bringing accountability. What’s really needed, as these latest episodes show, is adult supervision of bureaucracy. This requires senior officials who are properly sensitive to political issues. But such officials have become so afraid of seeming to meddle that mistakes happen. Where was the senior manager who should have stopped IRS employees from writing outrageous questionnaires + search queries targeting “Patriots” and “We the People”? Perhaps that person was wading through congressional messages urging IRS investigations of tax-exempt political groups. Where was the top Justice Department official who should have checked a runaway prosecutor from issuing an over-broad subpoena to the Associated Press? The attorney general recused himself because of fear of a perceived conflict of interest. Perhaps lower-level officials were chilled by congressional demands for leak investigations, and insinuations the administration was itself the guilty party. The principal activity of the federal government these days is investigating itself. No panel is bipartisan and independent enough to escape a charge it is covering something up. This accusation has been leveled against the review panel on Benghazi headed by Tom Pickering, the former undersecretary of state, and Adm. Mike Mullen, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Good grief, if these two are part of a conspiracy, I’m moving to Moscow. If you unpack the various scandals swirling around Washington this week, you find a common theme of bad decisions by government officials, compounded by a finger-pointing and second-guessing from Congress. Here are some moments in this chain of error (…..)

Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-in-irs-and-ap-scandals-a-dysfunctional-government/2013/05/15/137ba9de-bd92-11e2-9b09-1638acc3942e_story.html

After buoyant debut, U.S.-E.U. trade talks face a growing list of issues

The supporters of a U.S.-European free-trade deal have begun damping expectations about its immediate benefits amid a series of emerging disputes could complicate the creation of the world’s largest trade zone. President Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron met Monday and affirmed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership remains a top economic priority on both sides of ocean, critical in Europe’s quest for economic recovery. But in recent weeks, fresh disagreements have surfaced over issues such as regulation of financial services and the openness of U.S. state governments to foreign businesses and contractors. Those add to healthy list of legacy disputes involving agriculture, European prohibitions on genetically modified food and a French insistence it be allowed to maintain quotas on non-French media. None are necessarily deal breakers. But they could make it harder for officials to reach their goal of finishing an agreement by next year and diminish the potential for a treaty to quickly boost jobs and growth. Although the push for such a partnership grew out of concern about high unemployment in the developed world, business groups, the public officials and others involved in the negotiations say short-term effects may be muted. “There was an initial flurry of excitement that this was finally launched,” said Tim Bennett, director general of Transatlantic Business Council, a group of chief executives who confer with the US government and the European Commission on trade and economic issues. But “let’s not oversell the benefits. The benefits will take several years to manifest …. This is not the silver bullet is going to solve all the employment problems in the E.U. or U.S.” “If the negotiation gets started, we know it will be a long one filled with obstacles,” French Trade Minister Nicole Bricq said during a trip to Washington last month in which she detailed possible problems the French foresee in the talks. Cameron on Monday said the talks could launch formally at a meeting of top world leaders in Northern Ireland next month and that he hoped they would start without preconditions imposed by either side. “To realice huge benefits this deal could bring would take ambition and political will. That means everything on the table,” Cameron said. “The next five weeks are crucial” It is over that time the office of the U.S. Trade Representative will finish conferring with Congress about scope of the negotiations. A similar process is underway in European Union as the 27 member nations discuss a negotiating “mandate” for European commission officials. In the course of those discussions, the demands are multiplying. Some European officials want to use the negotiations to push back on new U.S. financial regulations that could force European banks to restructure their operations if they want to do business in United States. Effect of the Volcker Rule on European companies has been a sore point for more than a year. Some U.S. officials are hesitant to include matters that are still under debate in the United States and unsettled in U.S. laws and regulations (…..)

Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/after-buoyant-debut-us-eu-trade-talks-face-a-growing-list-of-issues/2013/05/13/c85bb6c0-bc05-11e2-9b09-1638acc3942e_story.html

Student Debt and the Crushing of the American Dream

A certain drama has become familiar in United States (and some other advanced industrialized countries): the Bankers encourage people to borrow beyond their means, and preying especially on those who are financially unsophisticated. Use their political influence to get favorable treatment of one form or another. The debts mount. The journalists record the human toll. Then comes bewilderment: How could we let this happen again? The officials promise to fix things. Something is done about most egregious abuses. People move on, reassured that the crisis has abated, but suspecting that it will recur soon. The crisis is about to break out involves student debt+how we finance higher education. Like housing crisis that preceded it, this crisis is intimately connected to America’s soaring inequality, and how, as Americans on the bottom rungs of the ladder strive to climb up, they are inevitably pulled down, some to a point even lower than where they began. This new crisis is emerging even before the last one has been resolved, and the two are becoming intertwined. In the decades after World War II, homeownership and higher education became signs of success in America. Before housing bubble burst in 2007, banks persuaded low- and moderate-income homeowners that they could turn their houses and apartments into piggy banks. They seduced them into taking out home-equity loans, and in the end, millions lost their homes. In other cases, the banks, mortgage brokers and real-estate agents pushed aspiring homeowners to borrow beyond their means. The wizards of finance, who prided themselves on risk management, sold toxic mortgages were designed to explode. They bundled the dubious loans into complex financial instruments and sold them to unsuspecting investors. Everyone recognizes education is the only way up, but as a college degree becomes increasingly essential to making one’s way in a 21st-century economy, education for those not to the manner born is increasingly unaffordable. Student debt for seniors graduating with loans now exceeds $26,000, about a 40% increase (not adjusted for inflation) in just seven years. But an “average” like this masks a huge variations. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, almost 13% of student-loan borrowers of all ages owe more than $50,000, and nearly 4% owe more than $100,000. These debts are beyond students’ ability to repay, (especially in our nearly jobless recovery); this is demonstrated by the fact delinquency and default rates are soaring. Some 17% of student-loan borrowers were 90 days or more behind in payments at end of 2012. When only those in repayment were counted, not including borrowers who were in loan deferment or forbearance, more than 30% were 90 days or more behind. For federal loans taken out in the 2009 fiscal year, three-year default rates exceeded 13% (…..)

Link: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/12/student-debt-and-the-crushing-of-the-american-dream/

U.S. Weighs Wide Overhaul of Wiretap Laws

Obama administration, resolving years of internal debate, is on verge of backing a Federal Bureau of Investigation plan for a sweeping overhaul of surveillance laws that would make it easier to wiretap people who communicate using the Internet rather than by traditional phone services, according officials familiar with deliberations. F.B.I. director, Robert Mueller III, has argued bureau’s ability to carry out court-approved eaves-dropping on suspects is “going dark” as communications technology evolves, since 2010 has pushed for legal mandate requiring companies like Facebook and Google to build into their instant-messaging and other such systems a capacity to comply with wiretap orders. That proposal, however, bogged down amid concerns by other agencies, like the Commerce Department, about quashing Silicon Valley innovation. While the F.B.I.’s original proposal would have required Internet communications services to each build in a wiretapping capacity, the revised one, which must now be reviewed by White House, focuses on fining companies that do not comply with wiretap orders. The difference, officials say, means start-ups with a small number of users would have fewer worries about wiretapping issues unless the companies became popular enough to come to the Justice Department’s attention. Still, the plan is likely to set off a debate over the future of the Internet if the White House submits it to Congress, according to lawyers for technology companies and advocates of Internet privacy and freedom. “I think F.B.I.’s proposal would render Internet communications less secure, more vulnerable to hackers and identity thieves,” said Gregory T. Nojeim of Center for Democracy and Technology. “It would also mean that innovators who want to avoid new and expensive mandates will take their innovations abroad and develop them there, where there aren’t the same mandates.” Andrew Weissmann, the general counsel of the F.B.I., said in a statement the proposal was aimed only at preserving law enforcement officials’ longstanding ability to investigate suspected criminals, spies and terrorists subject to a court’s permission. “This doesn’t create any new legal surveillance authority”. “This always requires a court order. None of the ‘going dark’ solutions would do anything except update the law given means of modern communications.” A central element of the F.B.I.’s 2010 proposal was to expand Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, a 1994 law that already requires phone and network carriers to build interception capabilities into their systems, so that it would also cover Internet-based services that allow people to converse. But bureau has now largely moved away from that one-size-fits-all mandate. Instead, the new proposal focuses on strengthening wiretap orders issued by judges. Such orders instruct the recipients to provide technical assistance to law enforcement agencies, leaving wiggle room for companies to say they tried but could not make the technology work. Under new proposal, providers could be ordered to comply, and judges could impose fines if they did not. The shift in thinking toward the judicial fines was first reported by The Washington Post, and additional details were described to The New York Times by several officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity (…..)

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/08/us/politics/obama-may-back-fbi-plan-to-wiretap-web-users.html

Start-Up Diplomacy

2011, a group of American high-tech executives and angel investors traveled to North Africa as part of an innovative State Department economic development program. Local entrepreneurs flocked to workshops in Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, where Americans judged their business proposals, encouraged them to open start-ups. Initiative embodied the “economic statecraft” at heart of Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton’s vision for American foreign policy. But program turned out to be so poorly financed that it had no prize for winners. Embarrassed delegates cobbled one together: an internship at a start-up incubator in Detroit. (source: David Rohde – NYTimes – 08/05/2013)

Today, Middle East is an economic powder keg. About 60% of the Arab world’s population is under the age of 30; millions of jobs are needed or already high unemployment levels will explode. Obama administration’s efforts in the region should be more economic than military. “The United States government has done a terrible job of focusing on economic issues in Middle East,” Thomas R. Nides, a former deputy secretary of state, told recently. “You have huge youth unemployment, no hope.” This argument is hardly new. “To succeed, the Arab political awakening must also be an economic awakening,” Mrs. Clinton said, more than a year ago. “Economic policy is foreign policy,” her successor, John Kerry, said this week. Last month he asked Congress to approve creation of a $580 million “incentive fund” that would reward countries in the Middle East and North Africa for enacting reforms that foster market-based economies, democratic norms, independent courts and civil societies.

But Mrs. Clinton’s proposal for a similar fund received a scant support last year from a Congress that was understandably focused on domestic issues. With the sequester now in effect, Kerry’s request could suffer the same fate. After Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s no longer politically feasible to sponsor vast development initiatives with little regard for whether they create self-sustaining growth for the region. We must find innovative ways to conduct economic statecraft in an age of austerity. The incentive fund, a small fraction of the $1.2 trillion Washington has spent in Iraq and Afghanistan, is a good start. Some countries in the region have had success implementing, on their own, the kinds of reforms the fund would encourage. Over the past decade, Turkey has carried out a harsh International Monetary Fund economic reform program, opened its economy, attracted foreign investment as part of its effort to join European Union. Today, few Turkish business owners care if the country is part of the union. In 2011, Turkey boasted a faster growing economy than any other European nation. And in the West Bank, the economic and security reforms of Salam Fayyad, who recently resigned as prime minister of Palestinian Authority, deserve much praise. Mr. Kerry should also focus aid in areas where viable markets and partners exist. Tareq Maayah, a Palestinian engineer who runs a West Bank high-tech firm, said $100,000 from the United States Agency for International Development helped his firm gain a tryout with Hewlett-Packard. Today, his company writes software for Cisco, Hewlett-Packard and Alcatel-Lucent, with no government assistance.

Ahmed El Alfi, an Egyptian-American Silicon Valley venture capital investor, said American officials could “do a lot more” at little cost. Mr. Alfi, who began a high-tech incubator in Cairo, said Egyptian start-ups clamor for access to American investors. “Have a weekly call for companies from the region doing 10-minute presentations to American companies,” he suggested. Mr. Kerry should emphasize to American companies that investment opportunities exist in the region, particularly in infrastructure, energy and aviation. Chinese firms exported an estimated $150 billion to the Middle East and North Africa in 2011, twice as much as American firms. Of course, some countries in the region are too unstable for American private investment. But in others, public-private initiatives that foster trade, a investment and the job creation with little taxpayer funding could be expanded. The high-tech entrepreneurship delegations started by Mrs. Clinton should be increased and properly funded. Wealthy Persian Gulf countries should be asked to finance a regional bank for small and medium-size enterprises. Perhaps most important, we should stop thinking we can transform societies overnight. Even if United States perfectly executes its policies and programs, they alone will not stabilize countries. We need viable local partners. Nations must transform themselves. Should scale back ambitions and concentrate on long-term economics. By trying to do fewer things over longer periods, we will achieve more. 

Three Thoughts on Cyber and the Defense Department’s Report on the Chinese Military

Defense Department released annual report to Congress on the Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2013. Besides being delivered relatively early compared to the past editions and being almost twice as long as 2012 version, this year’s version has at least three interesting points about Chinese cyber activities. First, as many have noted, the sharpest break from the past is that the report directly ascribes blame for cyberattacks to Chinese government and military, saying, “numerous computer systems around world, including those owned by the U.S. government, continued to be targeted for intrusions, some of which appear to be attributable directly to Chinese government and military.” 2012 report, by contrast, speaks of attacks “which originated within China” and active and persistent “Chinese actors.” 2011 report describes cyber intrusions, “some of which appear to have originated within the People’s Republic of China (PRC).” 2010 report seemed to split the difference, stating it was “unclear if these intrusions were conducted by, or with the endorsement of, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) or other elements of the PRC government.” Second, as David Sanger notes in the New York Times, the report tries to describe Chinese thinking about offensive cyber operations by citing 2 works of military doctrine, “Science of Strategy” and “Science of Campaigns.” This is not new, the 2011 report mentions them by name, a 2010 report uses same phrase “authoritative PLA military writings.” Sanger uses the report’s claim neither Chinese document “identifies specific criteria for employing computer network attack against an adversary” to turn the mirror back on its authors, and note that Defense Department has also been opaque about the conditions under which it would employ offensive capabilities. This lack of transparency is extremely destabilizing; the military doctrine of both countries emphasizes the importance of early attacks to gain information dominance, creating intense pressure to “use it or lose it,” but there is little knowledge of the other sides’ red lines and how they might escalate. Third, despite the announcement of a U.S.-China working group on cybersecurity during Secretary of State John Kerry’s visit to China, and General Fang Fenghui’s declaration that China was willing to set up a cyberserurity “mechanism” during a meeting with chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin E. Dempsey, the report does not give much reason for optimism that the two sides will find a common ground on the rules of the road. For the first time, report calls China out for playing a “disruptive role in multilateral efforts to establish transparency and confidence building measures in international fora such as the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Regional Forum, and the United Nations Group of the Governmental Experts.” Mistrust between the 2 sides was always going to make cooperation hard. The week before General Dempsey’s visit, PLA Daily ran a piece with headline, “U.S. Cybersecurity Strategy is Fake Cooperation and a Real Confrontation.” Playing a spoiler in international meetings, however, suggests how broad and deep the divide really is. (source: Adam Segal – CFR – 07/05/2013)

Europe has no exit

For most Americans, Europe is out of sight and out of mind. We figure that the worst of its debt crisis has passed. Italy has a new government. To mute social unrest, some countries are slightly relaxing austerity policies. European Central Bank (ECB) has stabilized the bond market for weak debtor countries. Despite problems, Europe is muddling through. Be skeptical. (Robert J. Samuelson – The Washington Post – 03/05/2013)

That’s main takeaway from a talk Wednesday by economist Hans-Werner Sinn at Peterson Institute for International Economics, one of Washington’s leading think tanks. Sinn, head of the German think tank Ifo Institute for Economic Research, is a controversial figure in Europe. He has been a regular critic of Europe’s responses to the crisis and has gotten into public tiffs with, among others, multibillionaire George Soros. Werner Sinn doubts the worst has passed. (Reflecting Europe’s economic weakness, ECB cut its main interest rate Thursday to 0.5%) The basic problem, Sinn argued, is that years of easy credit lowered unemployment and raised inflation in debtor countries. As a result, they lost competitiveness, especially compared to Germany. From 1995 to 2008, he noted, the prices rose 9% in Germany, 40% in Italy, 56% in Spain and 67% in Greece. When private credit dried up (Greece, Portugal, Ireland) threatened to (Spain, Italy), countries were left at the mercy of official lenders, Europe’s other governments, ECB and International Monetary Fund, and their insistence on austerity.

The debtor countries must restore their competitiveness, Sinn argued. Only that will reduce Europe’s massive trade imbalances, Germany’s huge surpluses + debtor countries’ deficits, establish a foundation for economic recovery. Unfortunately, there are no easy ways to do this. In Sinn’s view, Europe faces 3 broad choices, all bad. First, it can continue the present austerity measures, which would reduce wages+prices through steep unemployment and unused production capacity. But those punishing policies are “destroying societies” and would be maddeningly slow. Already, youth unemployment is near 60% in Greece and 55% in Spain. How much further can countries go? Ultimately, many would default on their government debt (as Greece already has) rather than submit to an endless national torture. And second, the debtor nations can regain competitiveness if Germany undoes its price advantage by embracing higher inflation. Annual price increases of about 5.5% for a decade might suffice, “which Germany will not accept,” said. German inflation is running at about 1% annually, unemployment rate is 5.4%, compared with 12.1% for the euro area (the 17 countries using the euro). Third, the debtor countries could temporarily drop the euro, restore national currencies and rejoin eurozone after improving their economies. This would involve default, because most (or all) debts, bank deposits, wage agreements and commercial contracts would be redenominated in national currencies (Greek drachma). There would be damaging side effects, Sinn said. Bank runs would be unavoidable, as depositors would try to get euros before they’re converted into cheaper national currencies. As in Cyprus, the governments might impose capital controls restricting money flows in and out of their countries.

Maybe Europe can “muddle through” with some mix of these policies, Sinn said. But he wasn’t optimistic: “We have to have debt relief [in effect: defaults] in a large scale … Obvious some countries borrow too much and don’t have the competitiveness to repay.” There was pushback to Sinn’s glum prognosis. Economist William Cline of the Peterson Institute said predicting default was more likely to bring it about. The ECB’s pledge to support debtors’ bonds had lowered interest rates. Resurrecting the possibility of a default would raise interest rates and increase the debt burdens. Jacob Kirkegaard, also of Peterson, suggested that the ECB can provide the credit needed to sustain trade imbalances. The alternative would be much worse. Broadly measured, Europe represents one-fifth of global economy. The question is not who’s right and who’s wrong. No one really knows. Europe may be out of sight, out of mind, but it’s not out of trouble. Europe has no obvious exit and this weighs on the rest of the world. 

Al sur de Río Grande y Cayo Hueso

Si dependiera de bien disimulados deseos de inamovibles intereses de los Estados Unidos, ALC podría perfectamente salir del radar de la atención del todavía poder hegemónico del hemisferio occidental. El interés norteamericano por sus vecinos se está debilitando por combinación de factores, cada uno de ellos repleto de argumentos convincentes. Uno es la fascinación por el Pacífico. El otro es el proyectado acuerdo de libre comercio con la Unión Europea. A pesar de ese diagnóstico, Obama encara una visita a Latinoamérica, un escenario infrecuente en sus periplos internacionales. Centrará su atención en el aliado natural, México, se reunirá en Costa Rica con líderes de Centroamérica. El presidente mexicano Peña Nieto, identificado como uno de los cien líderes más influyentes del mundo por la revista Time, disfruta de un especial respeto (a pesar de sus problemas internos), antaño ausente por las contradicciones en su formación histórica, el Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI). Aunque se anuncia una reducción de la ayuda destinada a sectores políticos, se planea el aumento en las áreas comerciales. Se primaría, por lo tanto, el refuerzo de NAFTA, el único acuerdo comercial que ha sido un éxito razonable de la política de Washington desde que al final Guerra Fría George H. Bush y Salinas de Gortari forjaran alianza que entonces pareció insólita, llena de riesgos. La presidenta costarricense Laura Chinchilla, heredera del respeto bien ganado por su distinguido predecesor O. Arias, encaja perfectamente en el retrato de buenas amistades que le convienen a Washington. Guatemala apenas consigue despojarse del pasado militarista y represor, perennemente pendiente de su complejidad multiétnica. Honduras todavía no se ha recuperado de efectos de la deposición sumaria de Celaya. Nicaragua del Partido Sandinista de Daniel Ortega, reciclado aliado ALBA, es un potencial campo de minas para reposados acuerdos. El Salvador todavía está inmaduro tras el ascenso al poder de la coalición liderada por los antiguos guerrilleros del FMLN de Mauricio Funes. La dictadura de las maras e inamovible estructura oligárquica imposibilitan su progreso, dependiente remesas de la emigración. Panamá siempre será el socio seguro, debe evitar ser calificado como un lector fiel del guión washingtoniano. La puesta en marcha de las nuevas esclusas del canal marcará una época, que no conviene hacer peligrar. En suma, el istmo centroamericano y México son el teatro idóneo de la nueva fase de la política de apoyo de los Estados Unidos. Si en el país azteca la prioridad va a ser la economía, en Centroamérica el aumento de los favores de Washington tienen como foco de la lucha contra el narcotráfico y sus secuelas. Esta es la fuente de buena parte de los graves problemas de gobernabilidad, la criminalidad desbocada y la latente sombra de estados fallidos. En el resto del continente el terreno de actuación de Estados Unidos está hoy dividido entre dos clases de países. Un bando está compuesto por los que mantienen un sólido ligamen con Washington, reforzado con los acuerdos comerciales e implícitos pactos políticos. Los otros son los socios de una alianza explícitamente opositora y algunos de actitud ambigua. En suma, el panorama ideológico presentaría amplia gama de opciones, dominadas en un extremo por una mayoría de los etiquetados como populistas. En el otro bando estarían los confiables para los intereses estadounidenses (…..)

Link: http://blogs.elpais.com/atlantis/2013/04/al-sur-de-r%C3%ADo-grande-y-cayo-hueso.html

Mexico’s Curbs on U.S. Role in Drug Fight Spark Friction

In their joint fight against drug traffickers, United States and Mexico have forged an unusually close relationship in recent years, with the Americans regularly conducting polygraph tests on elite Mexican security officials to root out anyone who had been corrupted. But shortly after Mexico’s new president, Enrique Peña Nieto, took office in December, American agents got a clear message the dynamics, with Washington holding the clear upper hand, were about to change. “So do we get to polygraph you?” incoming Mexican official asked American counterparts, alarming United States security officials who consider the vetting of Mexicans central to tracking down drug kingpins. Mexican government briefly stopped its vetted officials from cooperating in sensitive investigations. The Americans are waiting to see if Mexico allows polygraphs when assigning new members to units, a senior Obama administration official said. In another clash, American security officials were recently asked to leave an important intelligence center in Monterrey, where they had worked side by side with an array of Mexican military and police commanders collecting and analyzing tips and intelligence on drug gangs. The Mexicans, scoffing at the notion of Americans’ having so much contact with different agencies, questioned the value of the center and made clear that they would put tighter reins on the sharing of drug intelligence. There have long been political sensitivities in Mexico over allowing too much American involvement. But the recent policy changes have rattled American officials used to far fewer restrictions than they have faced in years. Asked about security cooperation with Mexico at a news conference on Tuesday, President Obama said: “We’ve made great strides in the coordination and the cooperation between our 2 governments over the last several years. But my suspicion is, that things can be improved.” Obama suggested that many of Mexico’s changes “had to do with refinements and improvements in terms of how Mexican authorities work with each other, how they coordinate more effectively, and it has less to do with how they’re dealing with us, per se.” He added, “So I’m not going to yet judge how this will alter the relationship between the United States and Mexico until I’ve heard directly from them to see what exactly are they trying to accomplish.” Obama is scheduled to visit Mexico on Thursday and Friday on a mission publicly intended to broaden economic ties. But behind scenes, Americans are coming to grips with a scaling back of the level of coordination that existed during presidency of Felipe Calderón, which included American drones flying deep into Mexican territory and American spy technology helping to track high-level suspects (…..)

Link:  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/01/world/americas/friction-between-us-and-mexico-threatens-efforts-on-drugs.html